Blast and ballistic weapons used on the battlefield cause devastating injuries rarely seen outside armed conflict. These extremely high-energy injuries predominantly affect the limbs and are usually heavily contaminated with soil, foliage, clothing and even tissue from other casualties. Once life-threatening haemorrhage has been addressed, the military surgeon’s priority is to control infection. . Combining historical knowledge from previous conflicts with more recent experience has resulted in a systematic approach to these injuries. Urgent debridement of necrotic and severely contaminated tissue, irrigation and local and systemic antibiotics are the basis of management. These principles have resulted in successful healing of previously unsurvivable wounds. Healthy tissue must be retained for future reconstruction, vulnerable but viable tissue protected to allow survival and avascular tissue removed with all contamination. . While recent technological and scientific advances have offered some advantages, they must be judged in the context of a hard-won historical knowledge of these wounds. This approach is applicable to comparable civilian injury patterns. One of the few potential benefits of war is the associated improvement in our understanding of treating the severely injured; for this positive effect to be realised these experiences must be shared

We live in troubled times. Increased opposition reliance on explosive devices, the widespread use of individual and vehicular body armour, and the improved survival of combat casualties have created many complex musculoskeletal injuries in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Explosive mechanisms of injury account for 75% of all musculoskeletal combat casualties. Throughout all the echelons of care medical staff practice consistent treatment strategies of damage control orthopaedics including tourniquets, antibiotics, external fixation, selective amputations and vacuum-assisted closure. Complications, particularly infection and heterotopic ossification, remain frequent, and re-operations are common. Meanwhile, non-combat musculoskeletal casualties are three times more frequent than those derived from combat and account for nearly 50% of all musculoskeletal casualties requiring evacuation from the combat zone.

Modern athletes are constantly susceptible to performance-threatening injury as they push their bodies to greater limits and endure higher physical stresses. Loss of performance and training time can adversely and permanently affect a sportsperson’s career. Now more than ever with advancing medical technology the answer may lie in biologic therapy. We have been using peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) clinically and have been able to demonstrate that stem cells differentiate into target cells to enable regenerative repair. The potential of this technique as a regenerative agent can be seen in three broad applications: 1) articular cartilage, 2) bone and 3) soft tissue. This article highlights the successful cases, among many, in all three of these applications.

According to a report by Millennium Research Group in January 2011, the US orthopaedic extremity device market will generate over $4.6 billion in revenue by 2015.¹ With an ageing demographic and increasing demand for better quality of life into old age, there is clearly a commercial drive for the orthopaedic device community to develop new and innovative solutions to bone and joint problems. Devising such solutions is one thing; protecting them, so that research investment can be rewarded, is another. How is such protection achieved? The judicious use of intellectual property rights plays a key role, and this article aims to provide some information about the use of patents to protect innovation.